Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Well, this won’t help: Baboon bone in iconic “Lucy” skeleton?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So says New Scientist:

Once the fragments had been pieced together, the skeleton was declared to be of the species Australopithecus afarensis. But the skeleton became known as Lucy, inspired by a Beatles song that blasted out of a cassette player as the researchers celebrated their discovery that evening.

Forty years later, thanks to its age and completeness, Lucy remains an important specimen. It shows, for instance, that our distant ancestors began to walk upright on two legs long before they developed big brains.

It’s no surprise, then, that replicas of the skeleton are on display at museums across the world. But when Gary Sawyer and Mike Smith at the American Museum of Natural History in New York recently began work on a new reconstruction of Lucy’s skeleton, with help from Scott Williams at New York University, they noticed something odd. More.

For sure.

See also: What we do and don’t know about human evolution

Comments
What do you think the nodes in phylogenetic trees represent, Joe? Does rotating a branch change any nodes?
No, it just changes their POSITION. And that changes their apparent RELATIONSHIPS.Joe
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Thanks for the corrections, wd400. I've now read in several places that Lucy (AL 288-1) *did* include a knee joint, and that Donald Johanson was referring to a different afarensis knee joint that he also discovered some distance away and in strata 200 feet lower than Lucy. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/45780/20150413/baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton-of-early-human-ancestor.htm -QQuerius
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
What do you think the nodes in phylogenetic trees represent, Joe? Does rotating a branch change any nodes?wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Of related interest: In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, speaking at the 2014 Science and Human Origins conference, discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursor. 2014 - podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-2/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-3/ podcast - Casey Luskin - On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/12/on-human-origins-what-the-fossils-tell-us-pt-4/ In the following podcasts, Richard Sternberg gives a very good, empirically backed, presentation on why the human genome is not full of junk as neo-Darwinists adamantly claim: Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2 (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ Podcast: Richard Sternberg PhD - " On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 3 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-11-17T14_14_33-08_00 Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 4 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-4/ Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 5 (emphasis on ENCODE and the loss of the term 'gene' as a accurate description in biology and how that loss undermines the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-5/bornagain77
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
So every cladogram just happens to have the closest- evolutionarily speaking- sister population lined up next to it? And the amount of diversity cannot be gleaned from the range of divergence in the diagram?
So, in Berlinski’s Figure 1, B is more closely related to E than to A, because the clade (B(C(D E))) contains B and E but doesn’t contain A.
As Berlinski said:
A, B, C, D and E are labels marking points in the plane; the taxa that they designate are found in nature. There is a difference. That A is to the left of B is a fact about graphs and labels. It makes no sense to say of two taxa that one is to the left of the other. Very few taxonomists are known widely to confuse their left and their right hands -- no more than one or two. This is reassuring. That B is between A and C is otherwise. It is tempting. It is tempting precisely because it invites the taxonomist to undertake an inference from the premise that B is between A and C to the conclusion that B is somehow a descendent of A, an ancestor of C.
B would definitely share more characteristics with A than with E (figure 1). That should mean they (A,B) are more closely related than (B,E).Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Lucy is not a 'composite fossil'. The creationist meme is just wrong. AL 129-1 was found below Lucy. It's estimated to be about 3.4 million years old (0.2 million older than Lucy).wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Fascinating! I had no idea that Lucy is actually a composite fossil of more than one Australopithecus afarensis. This raises a couple of interesting questions. 1. If the knee joint of AL 129-1 was located in strata that's 200 feet above the strata that Lucy (AL 288-1) was located, what is the age of the knee? 2. What is the age of the baboon vertebra found with AL 288-1? This is getting very curious. -QQuerius
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Joe, Relationship is not determined by taking a ruler and measuring the distance between the "tips" of the graph. If you take two nodes, X and Y, they are more closely related to each other than either is to Z, if there is a clade that contains both of them but doesn't contain Z. So, in Berlinski's Figure 1, B is more closely related to E than to A, because the clade (B(C(D E))) contains B and E but doesn't contain A. In phylogenetic terms, it implies that B and E share a common ancestor more recent than the common ancestor of either of them and A.Don Pedro
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
This cladogram is a good example- Lemurs and humans are distantly related- evolutionarily speaking. They occupy opposite tips on the cladogram. If you rotate that such tat humans are now next to lemurs you can see how it changes everything
What new group, defined by a shared common ancestor, do you get a result of this rotation?wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Joe. Take a deep breath. Consider the idea that you might be wrong. Re-read what you have written. For instance, you have said" The clades exist in the rotated counterpart" and "The rotations cause different common ancestors". How can that possibly be the case given that a clade is defined as a group that descends from a shared common ancestor?wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
This cladogram is a good example- Lemurs and humans are distantly related- evolutionarily speaking. They occupy opposite tips on the cladogram. If you rotate that such tat humans are now next to lemurs you can see how it changes everything.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
The mistake is all yours, Piotr. Berlinski explained everything:
These cladograms preserve the hierarchical structure of Figure 1, but they fail notably to keep intermediate taxa where they once belonged. Rotations preserve some of the structure of the original, but not all of it.
The rotations cause different common ancestors. And figure 3 demonstrates that A and B have widely diverged whereas figure 1 doesn't show that.
you are equidistantly related to ladybirds, mosquitoes, fruit flies, lice, monarch butterflies, etc.,
Right, humans don't have any evolutionary relationship with insects.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
#45 Joe, No, you are making the same mistake as Berlinski. In his figure 1, A is equidistantly related to each member of the following set: {B, C, D, E}. For example, since humans are an outgroup with respect to insects, you are equidistantly related to ladybirds, mosquitoes, fruit flies, lice, monarch butterflies, etc., and have no special relationship with any particular insect. By contrast, C is more closely related to D and E than it is to B, and at the same time it is more closely related to B than either of them is to A. None of these relationships is affected by node rotation. If A were more closely related to B than to the rest, the structure would be as follows: ((A B)(C(D E))) or any variant with reversed nodes, e.g. ((C(E D))(B A)).Don Pedro
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Joe -- your comment in 45 is not compatible with the right definition of clade. Terms like "closely related" are about membership of a clade, if all the same clades exist in both trees all tips are exactly as closely related to each other in both trees. There is just no way around this, so please stop digging.wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
I know what "clade" means. You might want to actually make your case as opposed to fishing in a swimming pool.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
You might want to look up what "clade" means...wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
What? The clades exist in the rotated counterpart. They just have different configurations. Berlinski’s figure 1 shows that A is closely related to B, than C,D and E. His figure 3 shows that A and B are widely diverged, just by rotation and now D is more closely related to A, than B, C and E. That means he is right.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Find a clade that exists in one of the example trees but not its rotated counterpart (or i guess try to...)wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Thank you, wd400, I don't see how that helps Piotr nor how it refutes Berlinski.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Heres that reference joe: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newick_format Now please stop, you are wrong about this.wd400
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Berlinski's figure 1 shows that A is closely related to B, than C,D and E. His figure 3 shows that A and B are widely diverged, just by rotation and now D is more closely related to A, than B, C and E. That means he is right. Also cladograms ASSUME evolutionary relationships based on the number of shared characteristics.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Piotr:
Look at my example involving actual taxa.
Where is it?
There are no ranks there.
Then there isn't any hierarchy.
(X Y) means that X and Y have a common ancestor not shared with any outgroup, not that X contains Y or the other way round; and of course (Y X) means the very same thing.
Well that notation does not demonstrate that X contains Y. That notation demonstrates they, X, Y, are the same level. And again when one rotates the cladogram it gives the appearance that A is not closely related to B as it was in the original diagram.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Presupposing common ancestry as true in cladograms does NOT scientifically establish common ancestry as true. That you would think that common ancestry is true because it is presupposed as true in cladograms is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian thinking is in regards to the actual science at hand. All the empirical evidence we have says that the plasticity of organisms are limited to basic types of body plans. Moreover, there is ample empirical evidence testifying that 'bottom up' unguided neo-Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate for explaining the limited 'top down' variation within kind that we do witness. for example:
Atheistic Science is Rapidly Sinking in the Quicksand - January 28, 2013 - Rabbi Moshe Averick Excerpt: molecular biologist, Richard Strohman, who wrote in 2004: “Molecular biologists and cell biologists are revealing to us a complexity of life that we never dreamt was there. We’re seeing connections and interconnections and complexity that are mind-boggling. It’s stupendous. It’s transcalculational. It means that the whole science is going to have to change.” http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/28/atheistic-science-is-rapidly-sinking-in-the-quicksand/ K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems - June 11, 2010 Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” (1) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/k%C2%B4necting-the-dots-modeling-functional-integration-in-biological-systems/ “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. (Quoted in “Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).) "The real number of variations is lesser than expected,,. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism." (IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009, http://www.ludusvitalis.org/textos/32/32-11_popov.pdf
bornagain77
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
#36 Joe, Look at my example involving actual taxa. There are no ranks there. The hierarchy is implicit in the structure of the rooted cladogram, and in the bracket notation any pair of brackets (...) defines a higher-order taxon. (X Y) means that X and Y have a common ancestor not shared with any outgroup, not that X contains Y or the other way round; and of course (Y X) means the very same thing. In my concrete example, A = gibbons (= "the lesser apes"). The lesser apes don't contain the great apes (including humans). The most recent common ancestor of the gibbons and the most recent common ancestor of the great apes were different, though closely related primates. Their common ancestor can be identified with the (unlabelled) root of the tree, not with any of the terminal nodes, which in this case represent living taxa (not necessarily individual species). The gibbons, lumped together in my example (node A), actually make up the larger part of the ape family tree. There are 17 species of them, grouped into four genera. They are the closest outgroup to the great apes (their "sister taxon") and vice versa. Here's some info on how to read and interpret cladograms -- the kind of stuff Berlinski should have read: http://biology.fullerton.edu/biol402/phylolab_new.htmlDon Pedro
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
wd400:
Piotr’s notation is the standard one.
Reference please. His notation looks Linnaean.
Do you now agree rotating the tips makes no difference?
It seems to for the reason provided.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Piotr:
My notation has A, an atomic taxon consisting of a single terminal node, as the sister of (B(C(D E))), a more complex taxon.
It doesn't break out like that, Piotr. You have A as it would be if A was the Animal Kingdom, B was a Phylum, C was a Class and D and E were families. And as I said, and your ignored: In one graph A is closely related to B and in another they are not as closely related. It’s as if they branched decidedly in different directions.Joe
April 17, 2015
April
04
Apr
17
17
2015
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
Joe,
I know only the tips are labeled. Piotr’s notation didn’t reflect that. Piotr’s notation had A as a superset of B which was a superset of C which was a superset of D E.
No. My notation has A, an atomic taxon consisting of a single terminal node, as the sister of (B(C(D E))), a more complex taxon. Since the sisterhood relation is symmetric, it doesn't matter if you write (A(B(C(D E)))) or ((B(C(D E)))A). Within each bracket you can switch from (X Y) to (Y X), no matter if X and Y are terminal nodes or contain embedded taxa. The relationship structure isn't affected: X is the closest relative od Y and, vice versa, Y is the closest relative of X. I can't understand how Berlinski, with his mathematical training, could get any of it wrong.Don Pedro
April 16, 2015
April
04
Apr
16
16
2015
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Piotr's notation is the standard one. Do you now agree rotating the tips makes no difference?wd400
April 16, 2015
April
04
Apr
16
16
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
I know only the tips are labeled. Piotr's notation didn't reflect that. Piotr's notation had A as a superset of B which was a superset of C which was a superset of D E.Joe
April 16, 2015
April
04
Apr
16
16
2015
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
I don't think you are understanding that notation, Joe. The (multi-member) groups in that tree are {D,E} {C,D,E} {B,C,D,E} {A,B,C,D,E} (that is to say, only the tips and not the nodes of the tree are labeled) Those groups are maintained in the two representation Don Pedro prodvided. It is indeed one of the first things undergrads need to grapsp about "tree thinking", though they often take a while to "get" it. One way to think of it is to say the tree is like a childs "mobile" -- you can swing the branches around as much as you like, but no rotation will change which elements are connected to each other.wd400
April 16, 2015
April
04
Apr
16
16
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply